中文摘要
所谓蓝州(民主党)政客与红州(共和党)政客在环境、社会和治理(ESG)议题上公开表明的偏好之间存在鲜明反差。我们检验这些两极分化的政治立场是否体现于各州养老金基金的投资策略。我们考察了得克萨斯州的一项指令,该指令要求州政府机构从公开宣称支持ESG立场并据称"抵制"能源股的投资公司撤资。我们发现,被得州指令禁止的基金尽管冠有聚焦ESG的名称,但基本上都是指数型基金,其持仓略微偏离能源股、略微偏向科技股。禁止此类基金对得克萨斯州的养老金领取者或得州能源公司几乎不会产生影响,因为被禁基金的收益和股票持仓与按规模匹配的、未宣称聚焦ESG的基金并无实质性差异。红州养老金基金并未按照其政客的立场行事,其投资策略在很大程度上追随市场趋势。它们对科技股和能源股的敞口与蓝州养老金基金相似。我们由此得出结论:蓝州和红州政客分别作出的激烈的亲化石燃料与反化石燃料宣言,并未体现在各自州养老金基金的投资政策之中,而政客对本州养老金基金的控制力强于对外部基金的控制力。本文由 Ranjani Krishnan(会计)接收。资助:作者感谢加拿大社会科学与人文研究委员会提供的经费支持。A. Srivastava 感谢加拿大政府"加拿大研究讲座"计划(Canada Research Chairs Program)提供的经费支持。补充材料:在线附录和数据文件可在 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05180 获取。
Abstract
A stark contrast exists between the stated preferences of politicians in the so-called blue states (Democrats) and those in red states (Republicans) on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. We examine whether these polarized political stances are reflected in the investment strategies of respective states’ pension funds. We examine a Texas directive that the state agencies divest from investment companies that profess a pro-ESG stance and allegedly “boycott” energy stocks. We find that funds banned by the Texas directive, despite carrying ESG-focused titles, are largely indexers with a tilt slightly away from energy stocks and slightly toward technology stocks. Banning such funds would make little difference to Texas pensioners or Texas energy companies, because the returns and stock holdings of banned funds are not meaningfully different from those of size-matched funds that do not proclaim an ESG focus. Pension funds in red states do not act per their politicians’ stance and largely follow market trends in their investment strategies. They have similar exposures to technology and energy stocks, as do pension funds in blue states. We conclude that the vehement pro– and anti–fossil fuel proclamations of blue and red states’ politicians, respectively, are not observed in their own state pension funds’ investment policies over which politicians have better control than on external funds. This paper was accepted by Ranjani Krishnan, accounting. Funding: The authors acknowledge financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. A. Srivastava acknowledges financial support from the Canada Research Chairs Program of the Government of Canada. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.05180 .